In the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's capture, I was struck by how quickly Lieberman & other Dems tore into Dean for maintaining that Americans aren't any safer now than they were before. As I listened to Lieberman insisting that we are indeed safer, I thought, Jesus, this guy sounds like he's campaigning for Bush. I admire Dean's feistiness, and I like the fact that he has the stones to say the capture of Hussein has no bearing at all on the disastrous consequences of Bush's foreign policy.
Do the other Dems really think they can win a fight with a bunch of thugs by turning the other cheek? I thought these guys were professional politicians, i.e., that they were hard-nosed realists who knew how to mix it up in the big leagues. I must be missing something.
Gary
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:11:14 +0800
>From: Jacob Segal <jpsegal at rcn.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Washington post editoral on Dean
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
>Makes you like him.
>
>Jacob Segal
>
>
>Beyond the Mainstream
>
>Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page A34
>
>
>IN recent days a half-dozen leading Democrats have delivered major speeches
>on foreign policy. Mostly, they follow a similar track. Presidential
>candidates Howard Dean, John Edwards, John F. Kerry, Joseph I. Lieberman and
>Wesley K. Clark and shadow candidate Hillary Clinton accept many of the
>goals of the Bush administration but diverge sharply on the means to achieve
>them. All agree that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and
>the danger that they will be acquired by terrorists, are critical threats.
>All chastise Mr. Bush for damaging U.S. alliances and all promise to rebuild
>them, while "internationalizing" Iraq's postwar reconstruction.
>
>
>Yet there are important differences between the Democratic front-runner,
>Howard Dean, and the other five. In his speech Monday, Mr. Dean alone
>portrayed the recruiting of allies for Iraq as a means to "relieve the
>burden on the U.S." -- that is, to quickly draw down American forces. Only
>he omitted democracy from his goals for Iraq and the Middle East. And only
>Mr. Dean made the extraordinary argument that the capture of Saddam Hussein
>"has not made Americans safer."
>
>Mr. Dean's carefully prepared speech was described as a move toward the
>center, but in key ways it shifted him farther from the mainstream. A year
>ago Mr. Dean told a television audience that "there's no question that
>Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," but last
>weekend he declared that "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United
>States." Mr. Dean has at times argued that the United States must remain
>engaged to bring democracy to Iraq, yet the word is conspicuously omitted
>from the formula of "stable self-government" he now proposes. The former
>Vermont governor has compiled a disturbing record of misstatements and
>contradictions on foreign policy; maybe he will shift yet again, this time
>toward more responsible positions.
>
>Mr. Dean's exceptionalism, however, is not limited to Iraq. It can be found
>in his support for limiting the overseas deployments of the National Guard
>-- a potentially radical change in the U.S. defense posture -- and in his
>readiness to yield to the demands of North Korea's brutal communist
>dictatorship, which, he told The Post's Glenn Kessler, "ought to be able to
>enter the community of nations." Mr. Dean says he would end all funding for
>missile defense, a program supported by the Clinton administration, and also
>has broken with Mr. Clinton's successful trade policies, embracing
>protectionism. Sadly, on trade his position is shared by every Democratic
>candidate except Mr. Lieberman (and Ms. Clinton).
>
>It is Mr. Dean's position on Iraq, however, that would be hardest to defend
>in a general election campaign. Many will agree with the candidate that "the
>administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with
>inadequate planning, insufficient help and at unbelievable cost." But most
>Americans understand Saddam Hussein for what he was: a brutal dictator who
>stockpiled and used weapons of mass destruction, who plotted to seize oil
>supplies on which the United States depends, who hated the United States and
>once sought to assassinate a former president; whose continuing hold on
>power forced thousands of American troops to remain in the Persian Gulf
>region for a decade; who even in the months before his overthrow signed a
>deal to buy North Korean missiles he could have aimed at U.S. bases. The
>argument that this tyrant was not a danger to the United States is not just
>unfounded but ludicrous.
>
>Mr. Dean may be arguing Saddam Hussein's insignificance in part because he
>is unwilling to make a commitment to Iraq's future. He appears eager to
>extract the United States from the Middle East as quickly as possible,
>rather than encourage political and economic liberalization. His speech
>suggests a significant retreat by the United States from the promotion of
>its interests and values in the world. Mr. Edwards laid out a detailed and
>ambitious plan to prevent the spread of dangerous nuclear materials; Mr.
>Clark is proposing a new Atlantic Charter under which the United States
>would build an alliance to take on the transformation of the Middle East,
>among other initiatives. Mr. Dean's biggest idea is to triple U.S.
>contributions to a global AIDS fund -- an essential but narrow cause in
>which the United States would allow international institutions to take the
>lead. His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his
>opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S.
>ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is
>very much at stake.
>
>